If you have opinions about the subject matter of posts on this blog please share them. Do you have a story about how the system affects you at work school or home, or just in general? This is a place to share it.

Monday, April 25, 2016

Dublin 1916. Connolly, Mellows and the theory of the Permanent or Uninterrupted revolution.

The Irish Citizens Army was the workers' militia that was
formed by the Dublin workers in 1913 when they were locked out of their jobs
and starved back to work by the Irish employers for demanding to join a trade
union. The Irish Citizens Army led by Connolly played a major role in the
Dublin 1916 Uprising.

An excerpt from my coming book which deals with the
background, especially the class forces involved in to the 1916 uprising. I
participated in the civil rights movement in Northern Ireland in the 1968 1970
period. I took part in the Bogside uprising of 1969 and was a member of the
Bogside Defense Association. Out of these experiences and the readings of
revolutionary socialist literature I have drawn the following conclusions. I
wrote this in the last months of 2015.

Sean O'Torain.

Ireland and the
Theory of the Permanent or Uninterrupted Revolution.

I was speaking at a meeting in London one evening when
I was approached by a young man. He said: “I was interested in what you
had to say. I am wondering what is your position on Ireland and Trotsky’s
theory of the permanent or un-interrupted revolution.” I was struck dumb.
This was the first time I had thought of Trotsky’s theory of the permanent or
uninterrupted revolution in relation to Ireland. It was like the time the young
man in Canada had asked me about Joyce. I was humiliated and enraged at my
ignorance. Out of my readings and discussions that flowed from this humiliation
I learnt about Ireland and the Permanent or uninterrupted revolution. I owe
that young man a debt.

I had learnt that society developed on a materialist basis,
and that in the present period capitalism was struggling to maintain its hold
over society and keep the working class down, while the working class were
striving unconsciously, and on occasion consciously, to rise up and take power.
I had also learnt that there were different levels of development in different
societies. The capitalist classes in the advanced countries had emerged first
and carried out their tasks, that is ended feudalism, unified their national
territories, distributed the land to the peasantry, built modern home markets
and a world market, established powerful military machines and went out and
dominated the rest of the world. The result was that the capitalist class and
the capitalist system in the less developed countries such as Ireland were
restricted in their development. Trotsky described this as the law of combined
and uneven development. A world existed in which its component parts were
combined but unevenly developed within this combination.

The capital and power of the advanced capitalist countries
penetrated the less developed countries keeping the local capitalist classes
weak. At the same time this penetration strengthened the working class in these
countries through the industries it developed there. This working class along
with the working class who worked in infrastructure and other sectors in these
countries frightened and intimidated the local weak capitalist class, further
undermining its confidence and role.

So in the countries where capitalism came late on the scene
of history, such as Ireland, the capitalist class was not able to carry out its
historic tasks. Weak and dominated by British imperialism and threatened by its
own working class the Irish capitalist class was not able to carry out the
tasks of its own capitalist or bourgeois revolution. These tasks of the Irish
capitalist class were as elsewhere: to overthrow and drive out imperialism,
unify the national territory, end feudalism and distribute the land to the
peasantry, build a modern economy and a modern home market.

Trotsky in his theory of the permanent revolution concluded
that in societies such as Ireland that came late on to the scene of history and
where the capitalist class could not carry out its tasks then these tasks had
to be taken on by the working class. The working class had to take power,
and carry out the capitalist tasks. But Trotsky also explained that the working
class could not stop there, it had to move on directly to carry out its own
socialist tasks and at the same time spread the socialist revolution internationally.
It was a brilliant flash of genius by Trotsky. With it Trotsky was able to
avoid being imprisoned by the mechanical method of thought which saw the stages
of development which had been the experiences of the advanced capitalist
countries being looked to as examples to be followed mechanically by all
countries. It was also an example of how Trotsky used the dialectical
method, change takes place, but not always in a straight line, not one plodding
foot mechanically plodding after the other.

As I grasped Trotsky’s ideas I realized that I had
instinctively been working along the lines of the permanent revolution in
Ireland but did not know it. As I thought more about this I realized that while
I had an understanding of the dialectical method there was also the question of
how conscious I was of using this method and my skill in using this method. I
need to improve in both these areas.

In spite of what Trotsky said about the inability of
the capitalist class in countries such as Ireland which were
dominated by the powerful imperialist countries, to carry out their tasks, in
some countries, one such was Ireland, some of these tasks had actually been
carried out or partially carried out. How was this so? I was back to the
dialectic again, back to processes developing dialectically not mechanically,
back to combined and uneven development, back to processes developing in a
contradictory fashion, not in a straight line. Again the point was driven home,
if I was to understand further I would have to think in a more consciously
dialectical fashion.

In the latter half of the 1800’s the British capitalist
class were fighting on three fronts, warding off its rivals internationally who
were trying to end its domination of the seas and its number one place in the
world, keeping down its own working class which was trying to rise to its feet
through organizations such as the Chartists and the new trade unions and at the
same time fighting against the Land League, that is the peasantry in Ireland.
Fighting on all three fronts was not feasible. So British imperialism retreated
from one of them. It bought out the Anglo Irish landlord class in Ireland
and ended feudalism there. The Irish capitalist class were not able to carry
out its task of ending feudalism so another class, in this case British
imperialism, stepped in and did it. Again I was confronted with the twist of
the dialectic.

Ending imperialist rule, unifying the national territory
under its own control, that is the national question, and building a modern
home market and economy, these were the remaining tasks of the Irish capitalist
class, part of the Irish capitalist or bourgeois revolution. Between 1916 and
1922 the uprising and war of independence was faced with achieving these tasks.
But in these struggles the weak Irish capitalist class was either missing or
even at times supporting imperialism. These battles were fought on a
nationalist basis by a section of the working class, the poor peasantry and
some intellectuals. This war ended with a civil war, and a partial and limited
independence for the 26 Southern counties while the Northern 6 counties
remained directly controlled by British imperialism. Irish capitalism had been
unable to end feudalism and was now showing itself also unable to defeat
imperialism, unify the national territory or develop a modern economy and home
market. But this did not mean that nothing changed. Feudalism was ended by
British imperialism when it bought out the Anglo Irish landlord class and it
lost direct political and military control of twenty six of the thirty two
counties of Ireland in the war of independence.

While it could not unify the national territory or drive
British imperialism from the Northern six counties the stunted weak Irish
capitalist class, tried to develop a modern economy and home market in the
twenty six counties it did control. It tried to do this by keeping out British
and foreign capital. The result was a disaster. The Irish economy stagnated and
in the years of this experiment 1 of every 2 Irish workers had to emigrate to
find work. As well as unify and make independent its territory Irish capitalism
was unable to carry out this other of its tasks, that is develop a vibrant
healthy economy and home market.

In the 1960’s Irish capitalism admitted defeat, took down
its capital controls and groveled at the feet of foreign capital. The result
was some economic development but with a mountain of debt and eventually a
collapsed economy. Even with the help of foreign capital and the money from the
European Union it would prove itself unable to preside over a modern home
market and economy. The Celtic tiger was to give the illusion of success but
this was to collapse in a catastrophe of debt, deep recession, new roads, and
big houses which their owners could not afford. EU money and borrowing from
abroad and the foreign capital from US pharmaceuticals and high tech took the
bad look of it for a while but the fundamental failure of Irish capitalism
remained.

As a result when the troubles broke out in the North in the
late nineteen sixties weak Irish capitalism was faced with remnants of the
capitalist or bourgeois revolution still to be resolved. These were an
underdeveloped economy dominated by imperialism and a divided country with a section
of it under direct control of British imperialism. The tasks of unifying the
national territory and driving out imperialism and developing a modern home
market and economy were and would remain beyond it. The weak economy in
Southern Ireland was no attraction to the Protestant working class in the North
and cut across any effort to unite the country. Irish capitalism with its weak
economy and its inability to provide for its own working class was terrified to
try and unite the country and instead left British imperialism with its
political and military might to control things in the North. The theory of the
permanent or uninterrupted revolution applied dialectically was a
great help to me.

It explained how right I was in my conclusion that the only
progressive class in Ireland was the working class. That this working class had
to be united in struggle and take power into its own hands and overthrow
capitalism and establish a socialist society and go on to spread the socialist
revolution internationally, only this would solve the country’s problems. As I
understood this I realized that I was I standing in the traditions of Trotsky.

However the more I understood Trotsky’s theory the more I
realized that there was one area to which I, and also The Militant, with whom I
had been discussing had not been giving enough emphasis. This was its
international aspect. Trotsky had explained that the working class in the less
developed countries had to take power and carry out the capitalist tasks and
move on immediately to the socialist tasks if the problems of those societies
were to be resolved. But he also explained that the revolutions in those
societies had to be spread internationally. At the time of the Russian
revolution he and Lenin both said that unless the revolution was spread to the
advanced capitalist countries such as Germany it would not survive. In fact
both of them said they would sacrifice the Russian revolution if this would
mean a successful revolution in the more advanced capitalist economy and
society of Germany. It took longer than these revolutionaries thought but what
they feared was exactly what happened. The Russian revolution was isolated in a
backward country, cut off from the revolutionary upheavals and working class in
the advanced capitalist countries and as a result capitalism was restored to
the former Soviet Union. Again the dialectic, steps forward and steps back.

While I had always raised the need to link with the working
class in England, Scotland and Wales and internationally in my work, neither I
nor The Militant, gave enough emphasis to this aspect of our ideas or raised it
in the proper way. We both tended to speak of it more in terms of solidarity
and workers unity not in terms of the process of revolution in England,
Scotland, Wales and Ireland and internationally. The issue was not just seeking
solidarity between the working classes in all these other countries it was the
struggle to bring about the socialist revolution in all these other countries.

I was later to change my position in relation to the
socialist revolution and Britain and Ireland and borders. I maintained my
position of the need to have the socialist revolution in all these countries. I
also maintained my position on the objective of a socialist federation of
Britain and Ireland. However I reviewed the issue of the borders within such a
federation. I came to believe that if the socialist revolution developed first
and was successful in England, the economically and politically and militarily
most powerful country, and swept over the borders into Scotland, Wales
and Ireland it could be possible to go directly to a Socialist United Ireland.

However if this was not the case and if the socialist
revolution did not take place in England and spread internationally other
possibilities would have to be considered. Capitalism would try and put down
the revolution through divide and rule. Specifically it would as shown
historically try and turn the Protestant worker against the Catholic worker. In
this situation to call in advance for a Socialist United Ireland could be to
assist capitalism to deepen this division and put down the revolution in
sectarian conflict and civil war. So I changed my position to say that we would
have to see how things would develop and on this basis decide what we would
demand.

It could be possible that in order to undermine capitalism’s
sectarian divide and rule strategy it would be best to raise the demand for a
socialist Federation of Britain and Ireland within which the borders would be
determined by events and democratic discussion and debate. One of the
possibilities would be a socialist federation of Ireland and within the
Northern part of the federation guarantees of the rights for the Catholic minority
and within the Southern part of the federation guarantees of the rights of the
non Catholic population, Protestant, Muslim, atheists, etc. Atheists were now a
significant section of the Southern population and their rights had to be
guaranteed also. And of course within the Northern part of the federation the
rights of Protestants would have to also be guaranteed.

In such a federation, especially within a Northern
Ireland socialist state the possibility of the establishment of cantons based
on the different religious groupings in the North would have to be a
considered. A form of cantons already existed in the North as was shown with
the different villages and neighborhoods with their different flags and painted
side walks. Cantons existed in Switzerland with different linguistic and ethnic
and national groups having their own areas within the overall country. This
might be the best way of standing against capitalism’s efforts to derail the
socialist revolution by using the Orange card, by whipping up religious
sectarianism, by divide and rule, by cultivating the siege mentality of the
Protestant population.

One result of my inadequate emphasis and slant, by the
Militant’s inadequate emphasis and slant on the international aspect of the
struggle was I and the Militant tended to be always on the defensive, always
explaining that we were neither unionist or nationalist when we should have
been making the case much more strongly that we were internationalist and for
the revolution in Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales and internationally and
the order in which it would develop was immaterial to us. In fact we
should have been saying that if it was a choice between the socialist
revolution in Ireland and the socialist revolution in England then we would
chose the socialist revolution in England, the much more economically developed
and powerful country with the much stronger working class.

As I read and discussed more I realized that two leaders of
the movement in the nineteen sixteen nineteen twenty one struggle for
independence were groping towards aspects of Trotsky’s theory of the permanent
revolution. One of these was James Connolly. He explained as he put it that the
“cause of Ireland is the cause of Labor and the cause of Labor is the cause of
Ireland.” And most importantly he pointed out the weak cowardliness of
Irish capitalism when he wrote: ”Irish manufacture was weak, and consequently
had not an energetic capitalist class with sufficient public spirit and
influence to prevent union”. The “Union” he referred to was Ireland being ruled
directly by the London parliament and British imperialism. He was saying here
that Irish capitalism could not throw out British imperialism. This was in line
with Trotsky’s theory of the permanent revolution.

Unfortunately Connolly would yield somewhat on this position
when he took part in the premature uprising of 1916. But in spite of this his
ideas were so threatening to Irish capitalism and British imperialism that in
spite of being wounded he was tied to a chair and shot. The leaders of the
Irish capitalist class such as William Martin Murphy supported his murder.
Rather than leading the Irish national revolution Murphy and his class, the
Irish nationalist capitalist class, who had starved the Dublin workers back to
work in the 1913 lockout, bayed along with British imperialism for his blood.
That they did so was a further confirmation of Trotsky’s theory of the
permanent revolution.

Another leader of the forces fighting for independence in
that period was Liam Mellowes. In a debate from his prison cell with the
extreme right wing Catholic nationalist and supporter of capitalism De Valera
he wrote the following: “ Under the Republic all industry will be controlled by
the state for the workers and farmers benefit. All transport, railways, canals,
etc., will be operated by the state - the republican State-for the benefit of
workers and farmers. All banks will be operated by the State for the benefit of
Industry and Agriculture, not for the purpose of profit making by loans,
mortgages, etc. That the lands of the aristocracy, (who support the Free State
and the British connection) will be seized and divided amongst those who can
and will operate it for the Nation’s benefit.”

In this statement Mellowes leaves no doubt he was looking to
move beyond capitalism. Like Connolly he wanted the struggle to go on to where
it ended capitalism. Like Connolly, he too was groping in the direction of the
permanent revolution. It is no surprise that he, like Connolly, was also taken
out and shot. In his case by the other wing of the so-called independence
forces, the Free Staters, who

represented the weak Irish capitalist
class.

There was another important aspect of the developments at
this time which was related to the weakness of the Irish capitalist class and
which would go on to shape the Southern Irish state and also the Northern state
that would develop in the decades ahead. Irish capitalism was very weak in the
new Southern state. It had played practically no role in bringing it
about. It had little authority. It needed and sought allies. It looked to the
hierarchy of the Catholic church for these allies. In return for this
organization preaching and organizing for capitalism at every turn, helping put
down any left movement wherever such appeared, a deal was done with the
Catholic hierarchy giving it enormous power and influence in the new state.

It was given control over the schools, hospitals, social legislation,
given women and children as slaves to work in their laundries and earn them
money, given the right to imprison young people in industrial “schools” and so
on. The Southern state in its constitution declared itself to be a Catholic
state. It was the weakness of Irish capitalism that allowed, in fact
promoted, the Catholic church to become so powerful in the South.
In fact it is no exaggeration to say the Catholic hierarchy became a central
component of the ruling class in the South of Ireland. The weakness of Irish
capitalism and its deal with the Catholic hierarchy were part of what led to
the monstrous crimes of that organization that have recently been uncovered.

This deal between Irish capitalism and the Catholic
hierarchy fueled the arguments of the Protestant organizations in the North
that the South was a Catholic sectarian state and assisted the Northern elite
and British imperialism to convince the Protestant working class that the North
should be a Protestant state for a Protestant people. This stoked the fires of
the sectarian conflicts that were to come and strengthened British imperialism
in the North. The weakness of the Irish capitalist class and its
inability to carry out its tasks, and the deal it made with the Catholic hierarchy
as a result, remain major factors in the troubles, economic, military and
political of Ireland to this day.

My experiences over the 1968 period, my readings and
discussions in London in 1970 made things more clear to me than ever. The
problems and crises in Ireland and internationally could not be solved on a
capitalist basis. Only the working class by carrying out a revolution and
taking power and establishing a democratic socialist society and spreading this
internationally could solve the problems. And this could only be done if a mass
international revolutionary organization was built. This was the task. And
towards achieving this task I dedicated my life.